Back in 2003 Michael L. Best from the Program in Internet & Telecom Convergence at Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote on the then current wireless revolution and how it could effect the world if done right. This excerpt from his book, while outdated from a technological point of view contains interesting theories on where wireless was and is headed.
Best said universal access to the wireless infrastructure can make poor and rural markets profitable. There are three important critical innovations that are necessary. In order for this to happen we would need new and low-cost technologies. Also micro and small enterprises that provide services that can create value to the community while insuring that revenues stay up. In addition it needs to be supported by the public policy makers as a source of development and not a source of government revenue.
Many countries, including the US have licensed certain frequencies for business, and other use. For costs to remain low, allowing universal access to the wireless infrastructure, the signals need to transmit over unlicensed frequencies. That way small local networks will be able to provide access to the wireless infrastructure and these small networks when connected together could provide global communication and access to the internet at an affordable price. This is more important in poor areas and rural places that don’t currently have wired communications. Placing a wired structure in many of these areas would be too costly.
A good quote explaining this from Best’s book excerpt is: “Increasingly, policy experts agree that the concept of universal access should not end with basic voice services, but must also embrace value-added services, including the Internet. This is not simply because of the social and economic value of the Internet--although that would be reason enough—it is because the Internet is critical to the financial sustainability of rural access.”
In my opinion I think Best is correct. In many rural places and countries it would be almost impossible to facilitate the communications they need to thrive. The way to get this to happen quickly and at affordable rates is to let communities connect together and for now keep licensing free.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Are podcasts significant and profitable?
A podcast is a digital audio file made available for downloading from the internet through a feed, to your computer. It can be synched with your mp3 player. Podcasting is great because people can chose the media they want and listen to it when they want to. It also has made it a cheap way for anyone to become a radio producer and opened up the field of radio to the average person. For businesses it can be a powerful way to connect with customers and promote your business to them on a regular basis and it has opened the door for many people to become a recognized expert or celebrity in their niche.
In 2005 National Public Radio launched podcasts and within a week they were number one on iTunes for the most downloaded podcast. While NPR has offered repurposed material in their podcasts they also have offered some with new material. They try to present their audience with fresh material that isn’t offered on the air or web. NPR has been experimenting with different types of podcasts. They found that most people preferred smaller podcasts, like their “Story of the Day” which highlights their editorial picks, probably because they are multitasking and don’t have a lot of time to listen.
NPR is well known as free public radio with quality content, but they have to bring in money somehow to keep going. Sponsors and underwriters so far have provide much of their funds. NPR has found that podcasting is a new source of income that can help keep them alive. To make money on podcasting they have ads, but to prevent irritating their listeners they are very careful how often ads are played and what ads are offered. For a 30 minute podcast they usually have two ads placed at the beginning and end. They also try to look carefully look for ads that would be of interest their listeners.
Has NPR set a new model for businesses using podcasting? I think that having new material available for podcasts is likely to attract many people, and their brief updates are a good idea because not everyone can listen all day, or at certain times, and it’s a good way for them to still keep up and interested in the programming. Having carefully selected ads, such as for a political program offering an ad for a site you can go to, to get more information, seems like a great idea. Not all ads are bad. Many offer people more information and ideas that are helpful. If more producers were as careful about the ads they chose to air with their material, then people might not find them as irritating.
In 2005 National Public Radio launched podcasts and within a week they were number one on iTunes for the most downloaded podcast. While NPR has offered repurposed material in their podcasts they also have offered some with new material. They try to present their audience with fresh material that isn’t offered on the air or web. NPR has been experimenting with different types of podcasts. They found that most people preferred smaller podcasts, like their “Story of the Day” which highlights their editorial picks, probably because they are multitasking and don’t have a lot of time to listen.
NPR is well known as free public radio with quality content, but they have to bring in money somehow to keep going. Sponsors and underwriters so far have provide much of their funds. NPR has found that podcasting is a new source of income that can help keep them alive. To make money on podcasting they have ads, but to prevent irritating their listeners they are very careful how often ads are played and what ads are offered. For a 30 minute podcast they usually have two ads placed at the beginning and end. They also try to look carefully look for ads that would be of interest their listeners.
Has NPR set a new model for businesses using podcasting? I think that having new material available for podcasts is likely to attract many people, and their brief updates are a good idea because not everyone can listen all day, or at certain times, and it’s a good way for them to still keep up and interested in the programming. Having carefully selected ads, such as for a political program offering an ad for a site you can go to, to get more information, seems like a great idea. Not all ads are bad. Many offer people more information and ideas that are helpful. If more producers were as careful about the ads they chose to air with their material, then people might not find them as irritating.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The open source GNU Project; free software, free contributions - Free
Have you ever gotten “blue screens”, or system errors while working on your computer and had to wait an intolerable amount of time to get help from the manufacturer? Have you tried to build your own computer from scratch to cut down on cost, only to find the price of the operating system is twice what it cost you for the parts? In the early 80’s Richard Stallman announce a project to develop the GNU operating system, which is a free Unix-like operating system. GNU, which stands for ‘Gnu’s Not Unix’, is open source software that anyone can contribute to. Any one can also get it for free and copy and distribute it. Because of Richard Stallman and many other talented programmers willing to work without pay, we have now have a free operating systems like the united GNU/Linux.
The GNU Manifesto, found at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html , was written by Richard Stallman when he first began the GNU project to ask for participation and support. Stallman personally did not like to have to sign licenses and ‘intellectual property’ rights. He believed that software should be free, just like air, and used the example of a space station in which everyone had to pay for air per breather and liter: It would be better to support the production of air by taxes than charge the breathers.
In the GNU Manifesto Stallman tried to address many of the concerns and questions that people had about free software such as support, distribution and the effect on programmers. Today millions of people are now using GNU/Linux. It has a reputation of being one of the safest operating systems available and, if you know how to get it, it’s free. Many talented programmers have also willingly contributed to the project.
Personally I don’t like how Stallman casually dismissed what he thought would be the decline of high paid programming jobs. I have an inkling that Stallman may be one of those talented individuals that programming comes easy to and he doesn’t realize how difficult it can be to countless people. In music, art, literature, science and even programming, which at the highest level requires a great deal of talent, creativity and innovation, there are individuals that excel and make significant contributions and advancements to their vocation. Such a decline as he suggested would be a travesty. In the footnotes though, he later added - “The custom software business would continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world. Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid programmers would earn less in a free software world.”
The GNU Manifesto, found at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html , was written by Richard Stallman when he first began the GNU project to ask for participation and support. Stallman personally did not like to have to sign licenses and ‘intellectual property’ rights. He believed that software should be free, just like air, and used the example of a space station in which everyone had to pay for air per breather and liter: It would be better to support the production of air by taxes than charge the breathers.
In the GNU Manifesto Stallman tried to address many of the concerns and questions that people had about free software such as support, distribution and the effect on programmers. Today millions of people are now using GNU/Linux. It has a reputation of being one of the safest operating systems available and, if you know how to get it, it’s free. Many talented programmers have also willingly contributed to the project.
Personally I don’t like how Stallman casually dismissed what he thought would be the decline of high paid programming jobs. I have an inkling that Stallman may be one of those talented individuals that programming comes easy to and he doesn’t realize how difficult it can be to countless people. In music, art, literature, science and even programming, which at the highest level requires a great deal of talent, creativity and innovation, there are individuals that excel and make significant contributions and advancements to their vocation. Such a decline as he suggested would be a travesty. In the footnotes though, he later added - “The custom software business would continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world. Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid programmers would earn less in a free software world.”
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Clay Shirky on Web 2.0
When the Industrial Revolution came about, people suddenly found they had a lot of free time available to them. According to Clay Shirky first they spent that time consuming alcohol, then when TV was invented they soaked up much of their time in front of the set. The invention of the Internet has changed that. Now people are choosing to spend a lot of their free time in front of a computer participating on social sites, such as YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia.
Shirky has published a video on Blip.tv about this subject. While the topic is interesting, I found Shirky’s anti-TV and pro-social networking on sites such as Wikipedia incredibly biased and a little silly. Wikipedia, while interesting to study from a cultural point of view, is incredibly useless and a phenomenal waste of human cognitive time that could be better put to use elsewhere. You can’t trust anything you read on Wikipedia.
Social networking may not be just a fad. It may be just the beginning of something that is here to stay. But arguing that sitting in front of a computer wasting time on useless social networking sites is better than sitting in front of the TV is laughable. Television, while having the potential for many to abuse also has many education channels and shows that are produced for people to easily understand and enjoy. Many brilliant writers and producers have created stories, such as “The Day After” (1983) and “The Burning Bed” (1984) that have shocked the world and made people really question what was going on in our society. TV and Web 2.0 both have the potential for people to misuse. But they both also have their potential to captivate and affect our society.
Web 2.0 does give people the power to create and produce and participate. Right now, it does have enormous potential, but whether it will be the savior of our society or the downfall is still unknown.
Michele Simon
Shirky has published a video on Blip.tv about this subject. While the topic is interesting, I found Shirky’s anti-TV and pro-social networking on sites such as Wikipedia incredibly biased and a little silly. Wikipedia, while interesting to study from a cultural point of view, is incredibly useless and a phenomenal waste of human cognitive time that could be better put to use elsewhere. You can’t trust anything you read on Wikipedia.
Social networking may not be just a fad. It may be just the beginning of something that is here to stay. But arguing that sitting in front of a computer wasting time on useless social networking sites is better than sitting in front of the TV is laughable. Television, while having the potential for many to abuse also has many education channels and shows that are produced for people to easily understand and enjoy. Many brilliant writers and producers have created stories, such as “The Day After” (1983) and “The Burning Bed” (1984) that have shocked the world and made people really question what was going on in our society. TV and Web 2.0 both have the potential for people to misuse. But they both also have their potential to captivate and affect our society.
Web 2.0 does give people the power to create and produce and participate. Right now, it does have enormous potential, but whether it will be the savior of our society or the downfall is still unknown.
Michele Simon
Social software design and group politics
Before the Internet existed we communicated by talking over the telephone and through the media, such as newspapers, and before that by telegraph. Having a group meeting usually meant getting together in one place. With the invention of the Internet and Web we are able to easily communicate with people instantly over vast areas. We do this using social software, such as forums, email and MUDs. Designing the social software that allows people to come together in group ‘meetings’ over the web though, has unique challenges from other types of software.
Clay Shirky first published an article titled “Social Software and the Politics of Groups” on March 3rd 2003 that explained the complications that have arisen from having a, many times anonymous, social network. “The thing that makes social software behave differently than other communications tools is that groups are entities in their own right,” he said. Designing software for groups cannot be done in the same way as typical software because behaviors of people interacting with one another cannot be predicted as an individual user. Trust and reputation are concerns that need to be addressed, along with trolling, flaming and off topic conversations.
In order for groups to be successful they need to be able to focus on their topic. Because the Internet has allowed people to express themselves individually, and covet that, the needs of groups are often disrupted by the needs and desires of the individual. Groups that are free and open often fail miserably. Successful groups have used some type of moderation and/or registration.
I’ve participated in a large active focused forum before, and I found that the interaction can be fun and at times exhilarating. But I’ve also found it to be extremely frustrating with people hijacking threads and talking off topic, and trolls causing all sorts off trouble. I remember someone once saying that a forum with paid membership has less of those problems. I tried one of those and found that to be somewhat true, but even those were not immune. While the social software has been getting better and better, we still have a lot to work on, on the way we use it.
Clay Shirky first published an article titled “Social Software and the Politics of Groups” on March 3rd 2003 that explained the complications that have arisen from having a, many times anonymous, social network. “The thing that makes social software behave differently than other communications tools is that groups are entities in their own right,” he said. Designing software for groups cannot be done in the same way as typical software because behaviors of people interacting with one another cannot be predicted as an individual user. Trust and reputation are concerns that need to be addressed, along with trolling, flaming and off topic conversations.
In order for groups to be successful they need to be able to focus on their topic. Because the Internet has allowed people to express themselves individually, and covet that, the needs of groups are often disrupted by the needs and desires of the individual. Groups that are free and open often fail miserably. Successful groups have used some type of moderation and/or registration.
I’ve participated in a large active focused forum before, and I found that the interaction can be fun and at times exhilarating. But I’ve also found it to be extremely frustrating with people hijacking threads and talking off topic, and trolls causing all sorts off trouble. I remember someone once saying that a forum with paid membership has less of those problems. I tried one of those and found that to be somewhat true, but even those were not immune. While the social software has been getting better and better, we still have a lot to work on, on the way we use it.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Making it easier for people to find information and web pages on the Internet
Not being able to find information you know exists somewhere is a very old problem. Information architects have applied known and well-tried tools from library science to solve this problem on the web, but there is still increasing amount of difficulty searching for and finding the information that you want. There is hope on the horizon: Topic maps are a new tool available to help solve this problem.
Information on the web is organized using metadata. Metadata is currently the foundation of all information retrieval on the Internet. Metadata can be defined as information about a document, an image, etc. It contains the title of a web page or document, description and keywords that define the subject. Often this data is not enough to clearly define the subject so when searches are made the web page may either not show up, or may show up under a closely related subject. One of the main reasons is that the title and description can be ambiguous or not contain enough information, and the keywords, which can be entered by the author, can have too many subjects, or not clearly define the topic.
According to the abstract on Topic Maps vs. Thesauri written by Lars Marius Garshol "topic maps are organized around topics, and each topic is used to represent some real-world thing." In his abstract Garshol explains how metadata works and other library science type of data retrieval systems such as taxonomy and thesauri. So far these 'library science' ways of organizing and categorizing information for data retrieval are not working very well. Garshol goes on to explain how topic maps can solve this problem. “By using topic maps to represent metadata and subject-based classification it is possible to reuse existing classifications and classification techniques, while at the same time describing the world more precisely where desired” he says.
I personally would love to be able to easily search for a subject on the web and have quick accurate hits! As the information overload on the internet increases our search engines are becoming bogged down in irrelevance. A new accurate way of conducting searches are needed. Hopefully topic maps are the answer. I believe that it is also just as equally important for site owners to try to accurately define their site in the metadata and using the tools available. If web pages aren’t defined well then they may miss their target audience.
Information on the web is organized using metadata. Metadata is currently the foundation of all information retrieval on the Internet. Metadata can be defined as information about a document, an image, etc. It contains the title of a web page or document, description and keywords that define the subject. Often this data is not enough to clearly define the subject so when searches are made the web page may either not show up, or may show up under a closely related subject. One of the main reasons is that the title and description can be ambiguous or not contain enough information, and the keywords, which can be entered by the author, can have too many subjects, or not clearly define the topic.
According to the abstract on Topic Maps vs. Thesauri written by Lars Marius Garshol "topic maps are organized around topics, and each topic is used to represent some real-world thing." In his abstract Garshol explains how metadata works and other library science type of data retrieval systems such as taxonomy and thesauri. So far these 'library science' ways of organizing and categorizing information for data retrieval are not working very well. Garshol goes on to explain how topic maps can solve this problem. “By using topic maps to represent metadata and subject-based classification it is possible to reuse existing classifications and classification techniques, while at the same time describing the world more precisely where desired” he says.
I personally would love to be able to easily search for a subject on the web and have quick accurate hits! As the information overload on the internet increases our search engines are becoming bogged down in irrelevance. A new accurate way of conducting searches are needed. Hopefully topic maps are the answer. I believe that it is also just as equally important for site owners to try to accurately define their site in the metadata and using the tools available. If web pages aren’t defined well then they may miss their target audience.
Designing websites with user experience design
When you visit a website the images, text and navigation are the first thing you see, but designing a successful website comprises of a lot more than those visual elements. Websites must be designed with the user experience in mind.
There are several stages of website design and they begin with a strategy. The strategy consists of the goals for the site that come specifically from the people who will use the website. The site owner’s own objectives are then balanced against user needs for the site. The strategy is always the first thing that is developed, before any visuals are created or other stages are planned.
Each stage of the development of a website is dependant on the one before it. According to Jesse James Garrett’s book ‘The Elements of User Experience’ the stages in the development of a website are; The Strategy, Scope, Structure, Skeleton and Surface. If you try to create a website out of sequence, for instance creating the surface visual design before the strategy, you can end up with some awkward problems or poor design.
Garrett says there are two basic types of websites; the informational Hypertext System that contains information and hyperlinks, and the Software Interface that is mainly concerned with tasks (the site is considered as a tool or set of tools that the user utilizes to accomplish tasks). The stages of design for each of these types, depending on which your working on, is basically the same but the scope, structure and skeleton have slightly different needs addressed.
When designing a Software Interface the Scope addresses the functional specifications of the site (a detailed description of the “feature set” of the product). The Scope of the informational Hypertext System addresses the content requirements. The Structure design of the Software Interface looks at the interaction while the Hypertext System focuses on information architecture - the arrangement of content elements on the page. The Skeletal design of each of these types of sites both includes information design, which is how the information is presented so users can understand it. The Software Interface would concentrate on the interface design and user interaction though, while the Hypertext System focuses on navigation design of the site.
I consider the development of a website for the user’s experience extremely important and it should never be overlooked. You take a high risk of losing touch with your audience or prospective customers or clients when you broadcast your own needs and desires on your site without considering how the users will experience the website when they visit it.
There are several stages of website design and they begin with a strategy. The strategy consists of the goals for the site that come specifically from the people who will use the website. The site owner’s own objectives are then balanced against user needs for the site. The strategy is always the first thing that is developed, before any visuals are created or other stages are planned.
Each stage of the development of a website is dependant on the one before it. According to Jesse James Garrett’s book ‘The Elements of User Experience’ the stages in the development of a website are; The Strategy, Scope, Structure, Skeleton and Surface. If you try to create a website out of sequence, for instance creating the surface visual design before the strategy, you can end up with some awkward problems or poor design.
Garrett says there are two basic types of websites; the informational Hypertext System that contains information and hyperlinks, and the Software Interface that is mainly concerned with tasks (the site is considered as a tool or set of tools that the user utilizes to accomplish tasks). The stages of design for each of these types, depending on which your working on, is basically the same but the scope, structure and skeleton have slightly different needs addressed.
When designing a Software Interface the Scope addresses the functional specifications of the site (a detailed description of the “feature set” of the product). The Scope of the informational Hypertext System addresses the content requirements. The Structure design of the Software Interface looks at the interaction while the Hypertext System focuses on information architecture - the arrangement of content elements on the page. The Skeletal design of each of these types of sites both includes information design, which is how the information is presented so users can understand it. The Software Interface would concentrate on the interface design and user interaction though, while the Hypertext System focuses on navigation design of the site.
I consider the development of a website for the user’s experience extremely important and it should never be overlooked. You take a high risk of losing touch with your audience or prospective customers or clients when you broadcast your own needs and desires on your site without considering how the users will experience the website when they visit it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)